- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.20 OF 2019 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI KONDAIAH S/O LATE MALAKONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.AB-3 OLD TOWNSHIP COLONY HAL PUMP HOUSE HAL BENGALURU - 560 017 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020 RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/6/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 56406/2015 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This writ appeal filed under Section–4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 13.06.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.56406/2015, wherein the appellant / petitioner request for a direction to the respondent–BDA to consider the request of the appellant/petitioner dated 04.08.2015, to receive the sital value with interest and to allot an alternate site to the petitioner, is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.H.C.Sundaresh for the appellant-petitioner and Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the respondent - BDA. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant belongs to the Schedule Caste Category and was allotted a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 site measuring 30’x40’, under allotment letter dated 16.02.1995 of the respondent – BDA. In terms of the allotment letter dated 16.02.1995, Annexure-C, the appellant/petitioner was required to deposit the sital value within 90 days. As the appellant/petitioner could not deposit the amount within the time specified in the allotment letter, he made a representation dated 12.07.1995, seeking extension of time to pay the sital value. Even after extension of time, the petitioner/appellant could not deposit the sital value, as such, the respondent – BDA by its communication dated 12.03.1996 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner is said to have submitted one more representation on 05.01.2008 requesting to revoke the cancellation. On consideration of the said representation the respondent-BDA in terms of endorsement dated 01.09.2008 intimated its inability to revoke the cancellation order. Thereafter, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 appellant/petitioner approached this Court in the year 2015, by filing a Writ Petition No.56406/2015. The learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 13.06.2018, rejected the writ petition on the question of delay of 20 years in approaching the Court and also on the ground that under Rule-13 of BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (‘Rules 1984’ for short), the appellant/petitioner was required to pay or deposit the sital value within the stipulated period. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/petitioner is in appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner Sri.H.C.Sundaresh submits that the petitioner belongs to the Schedule Caste category and for the said Schedule Caste category persons, the time of three years is provided under the amended Rules. Moreover, the appellant/petitioner who belongs to an economic weaker section of the society was not in a position to deposit the sital value immediately. Therefore, he seeks the benefit of the provisions which has been amended under notification - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 dated 16.03.2005. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.B.S.Sachin appearing for the respondent-BDA in addition to supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge, would bring to the notice of this Court, the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos.13871-13872 of 2021 in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. T.SEETHARAMAPPA (DEAD) THR. LRs., regarding allotment and deposit of sital value. It is observed that even a small delay in approaching the Court would not entitle the writ petitioner for relief before this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire records / material, the question that arise for our consideration is : “Whether the impugned order requires interference at the hands of this Court?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 8. My answer to the aforesaid question is in the ‘negative’ for the following reasons: The facts are not in dispute. The appellant/petitioner was allotted 30 x 40’ site, in terms of the allotment letter dated 16.02.1995 (Annexure-C). The appellant/petitioner was required to deposit the entire sital value within 90 days from the date of allotment. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner has not deposited the sital value within the time prescribed under Rule-13 of the Allotment Rules. Therefore, in terms of Rule-13 of Rules 1984, the respondent-BDA is justified in cancelling the allotment in favour of the appellant/petitioner. 9. Under the amendment notification dated 16.03.2005, Rule-13 of Rule 1984 has been amended providing three years time to pay the sital value in equal annual installments to the SC/ST category persons. The said amendment is of the year 2005, the allotment of site to the petitioner is in the year 1995. Therefore, the said amendment would not assist the appellant/petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 Moreover, the appellant/petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the case since the allotment was in the year 1995, the appellant/petitioner except depositing an initial amount of Rs.1,575/- has not deposited any amount. As stated above the cancellation was in March’1996 and the request for revocation of cancellation was filed on 05.01.2008. Taking note of the above dates, it is seen that the appellant/petitioner is before this Court nearly after, 20 years from the date of cancellation and 9 years after rejection of his request for revocation of cancellation. There is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering an identical question of allotment and deposit of the sital value within the time prescribed, in SLP (C) Nos.13871- 13872/2021, at paragraph No.10 of the decision has held as follows: “10. Though learned counsel for the respondents has earnestly attempted to distinguish the cited decision, however, we find that the issue involved in this set of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19071-DB WA No. 20 of 2019 appeals is broadly similar to the one resolved by this Court in the cited decision. Independently thereof also, we see no valid justification for the respondents not to pay even the nominal allotment price and/or to sit at home silently for over six years and then approach the High Court for obvious reasons of hike in market value.” 11. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the amendment provision which has come into effect from 16.03.2005, would not assist the appellant/petitioner and also on the ground of delay and latches has rightly dismissed the writ petition. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20